Tweet

Brandon Wu

Oct 21 • 5 tweets • 2 min read

This is a bold headline. Great to see US acknowledging the need for #LossAndDamage finance. But the crux of the matter is the actual provision of funds, to which the US remains staunchly opposed. msn.com/en-us/news/wor…

Key line: "US negotiators at next month’s UN climate summit in Egypt are discouraging any explicit push for new aid or funding." Instead, they want to discuss "financial arrangements" framing that doesn't imply an actual obligation of developed countries to provide money.

"Financial arrangements" could mean insurance schemes like the Global Shield or other arrangements outside the #UNFCCC. These are not a replacement for direct provision of funding. (btw we did a whole paper 5 yrs ago on why insurance for L&D doesn't work: actionaid.org/publications/2…)

Standard operating procedure for the US is to point to the private sector whenever climate finance issues arise. Kerry did it in NYC just last month. Don't let them distract from the need for public financing - and the ability of wealthy countries to deliver it!

Oddly enough, the European Parliament said it very well: for L&D, we need "new, adequate and additional sources of public finance clearly prioritising grants... notes the inherent difficulties in directing private finance towards loss and damage" europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @brandoncwu

Brandon Wu

@brandoncwu

Apr 4

New #IPCC Working Group III report/Summary for Policymakers highlights equity and the need for finance to support action in developing countries. But US & developed countries watered down a lot in their ongoing attempts to shift responsibility to the Global South. (1/11)

SPM paragraph D.3.2 includes the text “Equity remains a central element in the UN climate regime, notwithstanding shifts in differentiation between states over time and challenges in assessing fair shares.” (2/11)

SPM para E.5.3: “Accelerated financial support for developing countries from developed countries and other sources is a critical enabler to enhance mitigation action…increased…finance flows from developed to developing countries in the context of the USD100 bn-a-yr goal” (3/11)

Read 11 tweets

Brandon Wu

@brandoncwu

Nov 13, 2021

Already seeing articles blaming India for #COP26 "phase down" instead of "out" coal language. REALLY important to see full context here. The problem is not India; the problem is the US & rich countries refusing to couch fossil fuel phaseout in the context of global equity. 🧵

The text targets "unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies" which leaves GIANT loopholes for CCS (and "efficient" FF subsidies) as well as leaving out oil & gas entirely. India earlier suggested that it address ALL fossil fuels in an equitable manner. #COP26

But an equitable fossil fuel phaseout would place most of the burden squarely on the US and rich countries, as we show in this year's CSO Equity Review report. This would be unacceptable to Biden administration negotiators. civilsocietyreview.org #COP26

Read 8 tweets

Brandon Wu

@brandoncwu

Nov 18, 2020

@washingtonpost

Why this article in the @washingtonpost massively understates the level of needed U.S. climate action, and places the burden squarely on the poorest countries in the world while leaving rich countries largely off the hook: a thread. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/… (1/9)

The report that the article is based on says the U.S. needs to reduce emissions by 54-69% by 2030 to be “1.5°C compatible.” This is based on assumptions about emissions cuts that need to happen elsewhere in the world, to reach the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. (2/9)

But those assumptions are largely based on "global cost-optimization," i.e. more emissions cuts taking place where it's cheaper to do so. That shifts mitigation responsibility to poorer countries, even though the wealthier countries have been the major historical emitters. (3/9)

Read 9 tweets

Brandon Wu

@brandoncwu

Dec 11, 2019

So. We staged an action at #COP25 to call out rich countries for refusing to support people impacted by the climate crisis & lobbying for carbon markets that would allow them to continue business as usual (plus profits). And then #UNFCCC security went berserk. (1/?)

#UNFCCC security literally forced us out a side door into the cold European winter & closed a heavy metal door behind us. We were escorted off the premises by Spanish police w/armored cars. All for telling the truth about the rich countries blocking any real action from #COP25.

We were told we would be de-badged and not let back into #COP25 for the crime of speaking up against the travesty that's happening here: rich countries literally consigning millions of people to die because of their refusal to take responsibility for their actions. #UNFCCC

Read 7 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Separate emails with commas Message

Share this page!

Brandon Wu

People who liked this thread also liked...

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @brandoncwu

Brandon Wu

Brandon Wu

Brandon Wu

Brandon Wu

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!